The Peak

"A team player" — One major reason President Petter was the right choice

By Arry Dhillon

Being a member on the Simon Fraser University Board of Governors, one of my duties during this last year was to determine whether Andrew Petter would be the right choice as the next president of SFU. Although highly qualified in many ways, his most admirable feature is his knack for collaborative decision making.

Andrew Petter has the potential to be a great president because he collaborates using a team building and input-based approach to decision making. For example, David Turpin, president of UVic, notes: “He’s thoughtful, he’s intelligent, he listens, he’s a team player, he builds the team, and he’s strategic.”

In an online interview with Hart Shouldice (president of the UVic Law Student Society, 2007), he states that “[m]y time working with Andrew was a time of transition for our faculty, and I would be hard pressed to come up with any important decisions that Andrew made unilaterally during that time. Examples included major renovations to the library and a search for a new dean. Andrew made sure that there was ample student and faculty input into these decisions. He often stood back and put his trust in the people around him, which went a long way.” In another online interview with Jen Bond (chair/president of the UVic Environmental Law Centre), she explains that “Andrew works extremely well with others and is fabulous at leading teams through collaborative decision-making processes. I experienced this strength first-hand when we worked together on a major initiative to increase funding for UVic Law’s Environmental Law Centre (ELC). This project was multi-faceted and involved both community and university stakeholders. Andrew did a phenomenal job at listening to all involved and encouraging participation and innovation. A creative and collaborative effort ensued, and the result is a well-funded clinic which provides amazing learning opportunities for students and valuable pro-bono legal services to the community.”

What struck me immediately was Andrew’s willingness to listen to students, faculty, and others’ concerns in a direct manner. As Hart states, “. . . it was rare that Andrew would make a decision of consequence without consulting the appropriate students and faculty. One instance that comes to mind was when he had suggestions for how the faculty should go about distributing its teaching awards. He had some ideas for how things might be changed, but after student consultation he decided not to change things. This showed me that he took student input seriously and was not just consulting us for the sake of appearances.”

With this willingness to listen, it was and still is my hope that Petter will advocate to the minister of advanced education with the university as a whole in his mind. Incoming president Petter’s past position as the minister of advanced education will be an essential component in his new position. With potentially greater knowledge about the position than the current minister, he will have the ability to see through Moira Stillwell’s eyes and determine the best way in which to advocate for increased funding for SFU. SFU is projected to have a budget shortfall of about $12.6 million by the third quarter of the 2011-2012 fiscal year. This is followed by a shortfall total amount of $24.1 million by the third quarter of the 2012-2013 fiscal year.

Petter is well suited to determine how best to deal with deficits in a way that incorporates students, faculty, and others’ input; I make such an assumption based on his time as a dean and professor in the faculty of Law at UVic. As a former professor, he knows what it’s like to be a part of the faculty compliment and what problems many students face. “In my capacity as president of the Students’ Society, I was often the go-between,” Hart says. “Students would approach me with concerns and I would often take them right to Andrew. He was always receptive to these concerns, and would never shy away from directly addressing them. I never felt like Andrew was simply giving me the “official line.” As dean of Law, he was noted for having lunch in public areas, for the purpose of allowing for community input. This willingness to listen will be a key factor when he must face the problems of class sizes, class availabilities, and of course program cuts — SFU has been making across-the-board cuts in this university to deal with financial issues. With the budget problem potentially becoming far worse, it may be the case that SFU will make directed cuts, which could potentially see some programs lose a large portion of their funding. It is key that SFU’s next president be willing to listen to students, faculty, staff, and others affected if or when such a time comes.

Even a non-business student can see that if expenses continually increase and revenues decrease, that something must eventually change. If the ministry continues in its refusal to provide adequate funding, it may be assumed that eventually funding must come from a new source if cuts are no longer feasible. Such a source could potentially be the removal of the two per cent tuition cap that prevents student tuition from skyrocketing as it did in the early 2000s. Another possibility may be the increase or introduction of ancillary or service fees for the library or computer labs among other services, as has happened in Ontario (which led to a $200-million lawsuit launched against the Ontario’s public colleges). A major assumption I made when voting for Andrew was that he would take student concerns into consideration and be highly unlikely to advocate for the removal of the tuition cap or the introduction of new ancillary fees. As Jen Bond states, “With his assistance, student representatives were given the opportunity to meet with administrators and relevant faculty committees and, ultimately, to table a formal proposal at Faculty Council where [grades for mooting] were the subject of open and productive debate. Andrew provided invaluable assistance and support throughout this process, ensuring that students felt that their concerns were addressed with the utmost of fairness and integrity.”

Finally, I consider the issue of the future of SFU’s residences. Whether or not SFU decides to privatize its residences, allowing for community consultation and collaboration would be a major component in the success of evaluating the future of Rez. It is in my opinion, among those of others, that if privatization were to occur, doing so without consultation of the student population and others affected would be a nightmare. I would like to think that Petter would collaborate with the RHA, Residence Life, the general student population, staff, and others in such a major decision that would affect thousands of SFU students. I end this with two quotes re-iterating what I hope to be true about Andrew Petter’s collaborative decision making: Hart reflects that “with Andrew, it was always collaborative, every step of the way. I have seen other senior administrators give students a token seat at the table; however, Andrew made sure it went beyond that. He would make sure that student representatives spoke up and were duly consulted on matters that directly concerned them. He went beyond a ‘my door is always open’ approach (even though it was), and actively sought students out to get input from them, be it over email, in meetings or just stopping people in the hall.” As Jen Bond says, “Andrew is unique in his ability to both lead and listen. He is a visionary with boundless energy, enthusiasm, and drive, but he is also humble and incredibly open to the ideas and visions of others. His interest in working with those around him to find pragmatic and sustainable solutions is matched by his commitment to creativity and innovation. In my experience, working with him yields both a wonderful process and outstanding results.” ●